alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18182]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. GT98-75-000]


Distrigas of Massachusetts Corporation; Notice of Refund Report

July 2, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 29, 1998, Distrigas of Massachusetts 
Corporation (DOMAC) tendered for filing a Refund Report in compliance 
with the Commission's Order dated February 22, 1995 in Docket No. RP95-
124-000.
    DOMAC states that it received a Tier 1 refund from the Gas Research 
Institute in the amount of $16,839,000. DOMAC states that the refund 
results from overpayments by DOMAC for the 1997 calendar year. DOMAC 
states that it will not credit this refund to its customers because it 
does not pass through its GRI Funding obligations in its firm 
customers, and, therefore, no customers are eligible for such credits.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before July 9, 1998. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18182 Filed 7-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### *In re Dependency of P.H.V.S.,*

No. 91512-1.

Motion for discretionary review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, Nos. 71300-1-1 and 71301-9-1, March 2, 2015, 186 Wn. App. 167. *Denied*August 17, 2015.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM R.H.
DONNELLEY INC.'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         191,038
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,163
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,244
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               239,737
<PP&E>                                          57,238
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,111
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 515,916
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          127,250
<BONDS>                                        430,125
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,002
<OTHER-SE>                                   (134,596)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   515,916
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,549
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,844
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,644
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,380
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                148,838
<INCOME-TAX>                                    57,302
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             91,536
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    91,536
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.78


</TABLE>
Approved DLMS Change 47

Revised Service Code L Usage

1. ORIGINATOR:

a. Service/Agency: USMC LPC-3

b. Originator: Capt Anthony C. Fabiano

2. FUNCTIONAL AREA: Supply

3. REQUESTED CHANGE:

a. Title: Revised Service Code L Usage

b. Description of Change: This change authorizes assignment of Service Code L for USMC 

routing identifier (RI) codes for contractor use only.

c. Procedures: Revise Appendix AP2.2, Service and Agency Codes as follows:

CODE 4 30 31 45 46 67 74 S/A REMARKS

L L L L Not Assigned

L L L L Marine Corps Contractor Use Only

4. REASON FOR CHANGE: Currently, Service Code M is being used to identify both Marine 

Corps sources of supply and civilian contractors. In order to accommodate the fielding of the new 

Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR), USMC requests the assignment of Service Code L 

for use in the RI code field of transactions by civilian contractors (Oshkosh) supporting the Marine 

Corps. The support for the MTVR will be the model for the USMC Contractor Logistics Support 

initiative. (In addition, publication of this change corrects an administrative error in the above 

appendix that misplaced the L for rp 74.) 
5. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES:

a. Advantages: Once approved, the USMC will be able to migrate towards a seamless, 

transparent order and payment system. All contractors supporting the Marine Corps will gradually 

migrate towards the L_ series of RI codes. 

b. Disadvantages. Implementation of this change may result in potential conflicts with intraComponent use or unauthorized uses of Service Code L.

6. IMPACT:

a. Data Content/Procedures: Currently used unauthorized RI code assignments with Service 

Code L should be phased out to preclude future conflicts. Requires minor program changes to 

recognize Service Code L assigned RI codes as USMC contractors.

b. Publications: DoD 4000.25-1-M, MILSTRIP; DoD 4000.25-1-S1, MILSTRIP Routing 

Identifier and Distribution Codes; DoD 4000.25-M, DLMS
#### Ute Linhart, Respondent, v Jose Rojas et al., Defendants, and New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

[60 NYS3d 820]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered June 2, 2016, which denied defendant New York City Transit Authority’s (NYCTA) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s notice of claim and complaint, as amplified by her bill of particulars, asserted claims against defendant NYCTA for failing to provide proper security, failing to prevent the assault by defendant Jose Rojas, who pushed plaintiff into an oncoming train, and the negligent operation of the train in traveling at an excessive speed and failing to bring the train to a stop before it struck plaintiff. While NYCTA addressed the security and assault issues in its motion for summary judgment, it failed to sufficiently address plaintiff’s claims for negligent operation of the train. Thus, it failed to demonstrate its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the court properly denied the motion without regard to the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposition *(see Chapman v City of New York,*139 AD3d 507 [1st Dept 2016]; *Lee v New York City Tr. Auth.,*138 AD3d 579 [1st Dept 2016]). Moreover, based on the train operator’s own testimony, issues of fact exist as to whether there was sufficient time to stop the train prior to hitting plaintiff, although there was ample time to do so *(see Soto v New York City Tr. Auth.,*6 NY3d 487, 493 [2006]; *Herrera v New York City Tr. Auth.,*269 AD2d 212 [1st Dept 2000]). Insofar as plaintiff’s testimony would appear to negate any possibility of the train operator’s testimony being accurate, resolution of these conflicting versions of the incident are for the trier of fact.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Webber, Oing and Moulton, JJ.
# Fall Fling brings Subsistence employees closer 

/ Published Oct. 11, 2016
PHILADELPHIA, 

Nearly 200 Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Subsistence employees gathered at the Naval Support Activity Philadelphia base pavilion Oct. 5 for some fun, food and games.

The Subsistence sensing team organized the Fall Fling as a way to bring employees together and boost morale, said Kelly Parker, contracting specialist and event coordinator.

Parker said the event was made possible due to the support of Subsistence leadership.

“It has improved employee morale,” Parker said. “It has brought a lot of people closer together and everyone absolutely respects the fact that the front office supports this.”

Thanks to the donations provided by Subsistence supervisors, employees were able to choose between hot dogs, hamburgers, pizza and an assortment of side dishes and desserts for lunch.

“We are team Subsistence,” said John Sheehan, director of customer operations. He noted that during the event, people don’t notice grades or ranks. “It is just people having fun.”

Hattie Richardson, who helped grill hot dogs and hamburgers, said the fling was an opportunity to gather with colleagues outside of work. 

“We had a lot of participation,” said Richardson. “It just brings us more together as a family and we get to chit chat besides doing work.”

Employees also played cornhole and horseshoes. Parker said many signed up to play in the “Family Food,” where groups competed to answer questions about food.

Sheehan said he noticed a change in Subsistence employees as well as results from the culture survey because of events like the Spring and Fall Fling.

“I think everybody feels like they contribute in some way and makes them feel a part of the team,” Sheehan said.
Exhibit (23)







                       INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                                     

The Board of Directors
Ennis Business Forms, Inc.:

We  consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
on  Form  S-8  (No. 2-81124) of Ennis Business Forms, Inc. of  our  reports
dated  April 18, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Ennis
Business  Forms, Inc. and subsidiaries as of February 28, 1997 and February
29, 1996 and the related consolidated statements of earnings and cash flows
and  the  related  schedule for each of the years in the three-year  period
ended  February  28,  1997, which reports appear, or  are  incorporated  by
reference  in,  the February 28, 1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K  of  Ennis
Business Forms, Inc.



                                   KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



Dallas, Texas
May 28, 1997
Tacoma NAA DataCertified Design Values98th percentile values22006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Tacoma, South L Street 530530029 42.7 45.3 44 47.6 21.4 35.7Design Values22006-08 2007-09 2008-10 2009-11Tacoma, South L Street 530530029 44 46 38 35Non-FRM, Non-FEM Design Value Calculations2006-201198th percentile values22006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Tacoma Tide flats - 2301 Alexander Ave 530530031 36.5 33.8 21.6 30.1 18.1 24.9Puyallup 5722 66thAve E 530530022 ND1ND122.4 24.6 16.8 22.6Puyallup South Hill 530531018 33.7 31.9 21.9 26.8 18.6 21.3Design Values22006-08 2007-09 2008-10 2009-11Tacoma Tide flats - 2301 Alexander Ave 530530031 31 29 23 24Puyallup 5722 66thAve E 530530022 ND1ND121 21Puyallup South Hill 530531018 29 27 22 221. ND = complete data set not available2. 98th percentile values and design values are determined per Appendix N to Part 50.
No. 10-7766.

#### Luis Fernando Garcia Blanca, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1161, 131 S. Ct. 966,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 161.

178 L. Ed. 2d 795,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
No. 10-6841.

#### Eric Clinkscale, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 1094, 131 S. Ct. 801,

178 L. Ed. 2d 536,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9516.

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, denied.

Same case below, 41 So. 3d 226.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
                
                Defense Logistics Agency
                        The Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency
                    DLA
            Search
                        Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                            Search
                    Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                        Search
    Home

    What DLA Offers
    
        Excess Property Disposal

    Document Services

    Products

    Services

    Programs

    Working With DLA
    
        Applications

    Small Business

    Federal and International Cataloging

    Defense Data Standards

    Events

    Procurement Policies

    Government Programs

    Forms

    Organizations
    
        DLA Headquarters

    DLA Aviation

    DLA Disposition Services

    DLA Distribution

    DLA Energy

    DLA Land and Maritime

    DLA Troop Support

    DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM

    DLA Europe & Africa

    DLA Indo-Pacific

    Customer Support
    
        Self Help Tools

    How to Order

    Find Your Order

    Customer Facing Offices

    Training

    Brochures

    Warfighter Support

    Customer Service Management

    Careers

    About DLA
    
        Contact Us

    Locations

    Leaders

    News

    History

    Media Gallery

    DLA Campaigns  Home
  Land and Maritime
  About
  DLA Land and Maritime Image Galleries
 DLA Land and Maritime images
 Supply Chain Alliance and Exhibition
 DLA Land and Maritime News
 Hall of Fame Ceremonies
 DSCC Activities
 DLA Land and Maritime Hall of Fame ceremonies
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.18 MB)
 
 DLA Aviation DLA Defense Logistics Agency Vice Director Brad Bunn
 Photo Gallery
 2024 DLA Supply Chain Alliance Conference and Exhibition Image Gallery
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.18 MB)
 
 DLA Aviation DLA Defense Logistics Agency Vice Director Brad Bunn
 Photo Gallery
 DLA Land and Maritime news
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.18 MB)
 
 DLA Aviation DLA Defense Logistics Agency Vice Director Brad Bunn
 Photo Gallery
 DSCC activities
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.18 MB)
 
 DLA Aviation DLA Defense Logistics Agency Vice Director Brad Bunn
 Photo Gallery
 Contact UsSite IndexStrategic PlanDLA IG HotlineFOIANo FEAR ActWhistleblower ProtectionDLA CareersImagesWebmasterEEOSection 508Public AffairsSAPRExternal Links DisclaimerDOD Information Quality GuidelinesPrivacy/SecurityUSA.govDOD Web PolicyDOD Open GovernmentPlain Language
                    Stay Connected
            
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16597]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. EG98-72-000]


Western Kentucky Energy Corp.; Notice of Amendment to Application 
for Commission Determination of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

June 17, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 15, 1998, Western Kentucky Energy Corp. 
(WKEC), a Kentucky Corporation, with its principal place of business at 
P.O. Box 32010, 220 West Main Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202, filed 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an amendment to its 
Application For Determination Of Exempt Wholesale Generator Stats which 
was filed with the Commission on April 30, 1998, as amended on May 7, 
1998, (Application).
    Any person desiring to be heard concerning the application for 
exempt wholesale generator status should file a motion to intervene or 
comments with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 
214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 
and 385.214). The Commission will limit its consideration of comments 
to those that concern the adequacy or accuracy of the application. All 
such motions and comments should be filed on or before June 25, 1998, 
and must be served on the applicant. Any person wishing to become a 
party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on 
file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16597 Filed 6-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
NUMBER 13-12-00704-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

DONALD L. WILLIAMS, ET AL., Appellants,

v.

COMPASS BANK, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 430th District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, Donald L. Williams, et al., appealed a judgment entered by the 430th 

District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. On December 19, 2012, and February 1, 2013, 

the Clerk of this Court notified appellants, in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $175.00 filing fee was 
2

paid. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Appellants have not responded to the notices from 

the Clerk or paid the $175.00 filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 12.1(b).

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellants’ failure to pay 

the filing fee, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. 42.3(b),(c). 

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

28th day of March, 2013.
#### Com. v. Gey

12/16/2015

496 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 121 A.3d 1136
'x) - ' V, RECEIVED IN \V^ . VO^~ ^5\ o\\ ' O^ COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

\\.<n \^\*^ ^x:> ^^ W*o>* ^£>

^VC^i

AooXpV ^.V> ^-^
c^^W ^^

C?V 'f\&*j\L Uo^

DM ^. ^u
# C_2016156EN.01000201.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Malta

(Case C-12/14) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 46b - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 54 - Old-age pensions - Rules against overlapping - Persons entitled to an old-age pension under the rules of one Member State and to a civil-service pension under the rules of another Member State - Reduction in the amount of the old-age pension))

(2016/C 156/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Malta (represented by: A. Buhagiar and P. Grech, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and G. Hesse, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Beeko, S. Behzadi-Spencer and V. Kaye, acting as Agents, assisted by T. de la Mare QC)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Austria and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Austria and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Nexplore Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 (the “Report”),
I, David Lazar, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and               
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                     
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Dated: June 24, 2020 | By: | /s/ David Lazar                                               
|-------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |     | David Lazar                                                   
|                     |     | Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Accounting Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18206]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. OA96-194-004]


Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation; Notice of Filing

July 2, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 4, 1998, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 
tendered for filing its compliance filing the above-referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before July 13, 1998. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18206 Filed 7-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 21.1
 EMERSON RADIO CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
EXHIBIT TO FORM 10-K
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
 Jurisdiction of
    
    Percentage ofName of Subsidiary
    
    Incorporation
    
    OwnershipEmerson Radio (Hong Kong) Limited
    
    Hong Kong
    
    
    100.0
    %*Emerson Radio International Ltd
    
    British Virgin Islands
    
    
    100.0
    %Emerson Global Limited
    
    British Virgin Islands
    
    
    100.0
    %
 
 *
    
    One share is owned by a resident director, pursuant to local law. 100